OURVAR judged the referee's decision: Wrong. You're voting on whether OURVAR's analysis is right — not on the referee.
Do you agree with OURVAR's verdict?
Every vote helps sharpen OURVAR's accuracy — and we're grateful for it. The AI isn't infallible, and your verdict is exactly what improves it, case by case. You're helping build the VAR we all deserve. 🙏
The referee awarded Chapecoense a penalty, with VAR confirming the on-field call on review. Looking carefully at the available frames, the contact from the Palmeiras defender (yellow) on the Chapecoense attacker (white) appears very light — a brief arm-to-body engagement during a physical duel — and the Chapecoense player's fall looks exaggerated relative to the force of the contact visible in the footage. Under IFAB Law 12, a penalty for pushing or holding requires contact that materially impedes the attacker; the frames here do not clearly show that threshold being met. On the evidence available, this looks like an over-call, and the decision to award the penalty appears to be wrong. A dedicated close-up angle at the exact moment of contact would be needed to be fully certain.
Read the full OURVAR breakdown
Sign up to see every key factor, the IFAB law clauses cited, and the frame-by-frame reasoning that led to this verdict.
- Key factors that drove the AI's call
- Full IFAB law citations + frame references
- Vote, comment, and discuss with other fans
Ask OURVAR
Have a question about this verdict?
Push back on the verdict. Ask the AI 'why?', 'what about the elbow angle?', 'what's the precedent?' — and get IFAB-grounded answers from the same model that called the case. Pro 25/month · WC 50 · GB 150.
Discussion